Four years later...

[Rye]

The ancient hebs thought the world was like an air filled snow globe on pillars surrounded by watery void, naturally that leaked into their descriptions of the world, even when quoting "God" when he's boasting about knowing the land where lightning comes from and the like. A flat Earth interpretation of the bible is actually sound, given its source. It's not right in reality, of course, but that's because it was pretty clearly made up by human beings (hence why it is full of anachronisms to do with local disputes rather than cosmic knowledge or whatever).

As for contradictory prophecies, I would put forth Zedekiah's death compared to the prophecy of his death (Jer. 52:9-11 and Jer. 34:2-5). There's a similar thing with Josiah in 2 Kings 22:18-20 and 2 Chron. 35:20-24. There's loads of others too, of course.

[Non Catenatum]

In response to Zedekiah:

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Just read the whole chapter of Jeremiah 34, and here is what happens:

In return for his continued obedience, God tells Zedekiah he will die peacefully (the verse you quoted).

Then,

"8 The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again."

So God says,

"I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 'Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' [a] Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again."

Then concludes with:

"You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim 'freedom' for you, declares the LORD -'freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth...I will hand Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials over to their enemies who seek their lives, to the army of the king of Babylon, which has withdrawn from you."


So not only does God change the prophecy to fit exactly what happened to Zedekiah, but He even provides the rationale for doing so.

I'll need to look the other one up when I get back from work.

[Non Catenatum]

I briefly read the two chapters you mentioned about the contradiction with Josiah. What exactly is the contradiction here? God says "you will be buried with your fathers." And in both the Chronicles and Kings account, he is. Chronicles elaborates that he went into battle disguised and is shot by an archer, whereas Kings just says he goes to battle and dies. But I don't see anything contradictory going on.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

- Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.

I'm curious about one thing. You mention that you believe in the Biblical standard of marriage and, because of that, you consider homosexual sex a sin. All of that is fine since you don't feel it's your place to extend those ideals to others and you're willing to support certain rights that run counter to your beliefs.

But suppose you had a son or daughter who comes out to you as gay. How would you react? What would you say? Would you be supportive, indifferent or hostile towards their desire for a same-sex partner? And to add to that, if they asked you about homosexuality in general, how would you respond to that? Would you teach your children your own religious opinions about homosexuality to them? It's generally easy for someone to be indifferent towards the conduct of others. But when it involves your own children, it'd be interesting, I think, to see how one reacts.

[Non Catenatum]

- Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.

I'm curious about one thing. You mention that you believe in the Biblical standard of marriage and, because of that, you consider homosexual sex a sin. All of that is fine since you don't feel it's your place to extend those ideals to others and you're willing to support certain rights that run counter to your beliefs.

But suppose you had a son or daughter who comes out to you as gay. How would you react? What would you say? Would you be supportive, indifferent or hostile towards their desire for a same-sex partner? And to add to that, if they asked you about homosexuality in general, how would you respond to that? Would you teach your children your own religious opinions about homosexuality to them? It's generally easy for someone to be indifferent towards the conduct of others. But when it involves your own children, it'd be interesting, I think, to see how one reacts.

Interesting question...I can't say I've thought about this.

On one hand, I do believe it is a parent's duty to keep kids educated in their faith. I don't believe in some of the rabid indoctrination that goes on with children, but I do believe in their exposure to church, and Christian ideals.

In that sense, I would make my views known. I would let them know that, as a Christian family, we believe this is morally wrong. And be sure he/she has been given ample opportunity to accept the faith.

But if, after all of this, he/she still chose to act on his/her homosexuality (I no longer believe the feeling itself is a choice), I would be accepting, but not condoning. I would never shun, but I would, of course, make my feelings known.

I guess the issue here is family love. We have no duty to keep non-Christians from sinning. But we are bounded, by a love of family, to have more of an interest in their salvation. So the real issue wouldn't be "should I denounce this sin?" but "How can I raise my son/daughter well exposed to Christianity, without indoctrination or manipulation?" It's a difficult line to draw.

Because, really, while I have no right to force morality on anyone else, that does not make those morals any less universal. If I do earnestly believe the teachings of Christ, then I have a duty to those around me to not treat my faith as if it were a relative thing, but also to not shove it down their throats. Finding this balance, I think, is something that takes experience, rather than a line of reasoning alone.

[Surlethe]

So not only does God change the prophecy to fit exactly what happened to Zedekiah, but He even provides the rationale for doing so.

This raises an interesting point: a God who changes prophecy is a God who is changeable and mutable. Do you have a problem with putting your faith in such a God, given other instances in the Bible where God acts on a whim or changes his mind?

[Non Catenatum]

This raises an interesting point: a God who changes prophecy is a God who is changeable and mutable. Do you have a problem with putting your faith in such a God, given other instances in the Bible where God acts on a whim or changes his mind?

Whether or not I could have an issue in it, I think a God who "changes his mind" is something I cannot avoid.

Taking this to the extreme level, this results in Open Theism--the belief that God exists in time, does not absolutely know the future, and therefore is mutable and reactive (...in the sense that He "reacts", not in the chemical sense ).

I don't have a problem with this view, but I don't think it's necessary. A God who is in constant dialog with finite people will always be represented in a mutable way. He can't very well have said "You will be punished for something you have not yet done." C.S. Lewis describes the Divine interaction with the natural world as the law of Transposition. Any Higher-order of thought or complexity (such as an infinite God, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, etc.) must be transposed into human terms to be understood. This is why we see all the anthropomorphism in Scripture.

In other words, in the case of something like Zedekiah's, God could be fully aware of Zedekiah's future choice, and still make that original prophecy. It makes for an object lesson.

Another way to think about this is the difference between a prophecy of the future, and a statement of conditional will. The story of Jonah is a good example. God has Jonah tell the Ninevites that they will be destroyed in 30 days. But, of course, what the prophecy is shown to mean, is that it has the unstated condition: "if you do not repent". The same would be true for Zedekiah, but in the negative sense. "If you continue to follow me, you will die peacefully. If you break your covenant with me, I will break my covenant with you." Even an immutable God can have variable attributes. like this.

But again, I have no problem with Open Theism either. Whatever works.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Interesting question...I can't say I've thought about this.

On one hand, I do believe it is a parent's duty to keep kids educated in their faith. I don't believe in some of the rabid indoctrination that goes on with children, but I do believe in their exposure to church, and Christian ideals.

...

I guess the issue here is family love. We have no duty to keep non-Christians from sinning. But we are bounded, by a love of family, to have more of an interest in their salvation. So the real issue wouldn't be "should I denounce this sin?" but "How can I raise my son/daughter well exposed to Christianity, without indoctrination or manipulation?" It's a difficult line to draw.

To be quite honest, assuming you live in North America, exposing your children to Christianity is pretty much guaranteed even if you do absolutely nothing to expose them to it. If anything, you'd probably have to shield them from the ugly ideals of mainstream Christianity (namely the fundamentalist mindset). In my experience, church sermons and Sunday school involve a great deal of indoctrination of children and I don't really think this is an uncommon characteristic among churches in North America. I would never put my kids through Sunday school unless they really wanted it. Even if you don't intend to teach your children a fundamentalist view of Christianity, I'm almost quite certain that typical Sunday school programs will.

In that sense, I would make my views known. I would let them know that, as a Christian family, we believe this is morally wrong. And be sure he/she has been given ample opportunity to accept the faith.

You may think that is harmless but teaching your children that homosexuality is morally wrong is more harmful than you think. Even though I was taught that God loves all his children, being taught that homosexuality is a bad thing instilled a great deal of internalized homophobia in me resulting in a coming out process that was quite traumatic. The "God loves everyone" rings very hollow when you realize that you're being bad. Many kids suffer from self-esteem issues because of their internalized prejudices, which can manifest themselves in many ugly ways such as constant self-hate or overt homophobia towards other gay members. None of them have pretty results. Is your desire for your children to accept your religious beliefs that important that you're willing to risk those consequences as acceptable outcomes?

But if, after all of this, he/she still chose to act on his/her homosexuality (I no longer believe the feeling itself is a choice), I would be accepting, but not condoning. I would never shun, but I would, of course, make my feelings known.

As much as you would like to play both sides of the coin, there can never be true acceptance until you accept that embracing their homosexuality is a good thing for your children. While you may never shun them, showing your disapproval is merely tolerating and that can be just as emotionally painful as shunning them outright. You may not disown your children. But imagine your parents never joining you in celebration of your marriage. Or never acknowledging the legitimacy of your relationship with the love of your life. As much as you like to think that showing disapproval of their love life is doing good for them, you would be doing quite a great deal of objective, emotional harm to your children.

And also, what if your children were transgendered individuals? Would you support their desire to be associated with the other gender, emotionally and financially? Would you support a sex-change operation if they wanted it? At some point, you may have to decide what is really good for your kids. The real question is: which takes precedence? Your beliefs? Or objectively healthy child-rearing practices?

[Non Catenatum]

Your points are well taken. I'll definitely need to consider this--and a lot more--before having children. Instilling homophobia is certainly not what I would want in children, especially when they could very well be gay themselves.

Maybe I would leave the point alone, while they are children. When they are old enough to officially come out, and ask my advice on the issue, they could be old enough to understand the duality of my beliefs, and my unconditional love for them. At any rate, I would want love and acceptance to be what's instilled--leave the moral issues for when they are old enough to have accepted the faith if they wish, and could engage on the issue without feeling threatened.

EDIT: To answer your last question: my finances are the Lord's. But I believe the Lord would want, above all, a unified family. I would be willing to show my love for my child by funding whatever he wishes, even if he went against my morals. But first I would make it clear that this act would go against the Christian faith, and in that way clear all confusion. If they do not care to follow Christianity, I would, of course, be unhappy about it. But not with any outward manifestation. The best witness would always be love.

[Non Catenatum]

By the way, I've seen my name changed from "Fundamentalist Moron" to "Youngling" to "Padawan Learner". Is this a progression, or just two people trying to decide a new caption?

EDIT: Or is it just from passing post 150?

[Ace Pace]

By the way, I've seen my name changed from "Fundamentalist Moron" to "Youngling" to "Padawan Learner". Is this a progression, or just two people trying to decide a new caption?

EDIT: Or is it just from passing post 150?

Look at the Senate, your custom title was removed, returning you to the normal title rankings. Now, it will progress with your post count(doesn't mean you should spam!) or getting a custom title later on.

If you havn't done so, I suggest you read the announcements forum again.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

At the end of the day, telling them that you'll always love your kids and showing that will be the most important thing. In any case, it's a good thing to see you reflect on the points of others. Welcome back and good luck! It's people like you that offer glimmering hopes in humanity.

By the way, I've seen my name changed from "Fundamentalist Moron" to "Youngling" to "Padawan Learner". Is this a progression, or just two people trying to decide a new caption?

Your title was changed to "Youngling" after you ceased to be a fundamentalist. Your title was then changed again to "Padawan Learner" after passing 150 posts.

[Non Catenatum]

There have been quite a few others since then, but I don't want to bother listing them. Let's just say that there are a lot of fundie morons in the world. Moreover, there's no point listing methods of getting off the "Fundamentalist Moron" list. People like that are immune to logic and will never change, barring brain transplant surgery.

The system has been cracked!

(I read the announcements, by the way. Should have done that earlier.)